Would this page be more readable if it weren't a Self-Demonstrating Article? Sorry if I sound stupid, but I can't make heads or tails of it, even with the examples. In fact, because I can't tell what this trope really is, there might or might not be a lot of misuse there.

Judging by the examples, other tropers might have had trouble understanding this too, since a lot seem to have taken the trope name a little too literally or added mishmashes of the listed related tropes as examples (such as the Sailor Moon example; there really isn't any Antiquated Linguistics in there at all, if that is a building block of this trope).

I'd like help figuring out what the trope really is, but something tells me there really isn't one here at all.

Most of the Anime and Manga examples are shoehorned in. They belong under Excited Episode Title!. In fact, they are listed on the page as being examples of Excited Episode Title!, which makes is particularly odd that they didn't just put it under Excited Episode Title!. I suspect that someone just wanted an excuse to add Anime and Manga examples. Still, there aren't that many of them. Almost all of the other examples are correct. Some of them are Zero Context Examples and would benifit from a few samples of how they use such titles, such as I provide above. However, that is a common problem on any trope page.

Self-demonstrating section titles only seems like a good idea. Either that or have a separate modern English version similar to The Backwards R.

After that's done, I also feel like the definition should be cleared up or tightened a little bit. My guess is those anime examples were put in by somebody who misunderstood the description; I don't get the sense that they were shoehorned in, especially considering how varied the other examples are. I personally don't really know how much is required for this trope to take effect. Does a title qualify if it simply crosses Exactly What It Says on the Tin with Antiquated Linguistics, or is there more to it?

And come to think of it, should the Nonindicative Name point perhaps be eliminated altogether? That seems to fly in the face of the definition if I got it right. If that's it, then Nonindicative Name could be listed as more of a subversion of the trope, not put in the description as if a title that satisfies it is a straight example. I think points like that could create more confusion if they're not cleared up, so I'd really like the trope definition to be solidified a little more after we agree on how to rewrite the article.

I'd move that towards the end of the article and change it to something like "sometimes subverted by making it a Non-Indicative Name". It definitely shouldn't say "very often"; the original form of this trope is to have the title being very much indicative of the plot, and making it a Non-Indicative Name subverts that.

It does not matter who I am. What matters is, who will you become? - motto of Omsk Bird

Technically it isn't using "trope" as a placeholder, which means that "trope" is used as a variable for which any word can be substituted, but it is being self demonstrating by referring to the fact that the article in question describes a trope.

In Which a possible New iteration of the trope Description is proposed:

If we're mostly agreed that the self-demonstration could be kept for title portions within the page, as that is the trope, then here's my proposal for a clearer description of the trope. Open for proofreading and tweaking, obviously:

Sometimes writers like to have fun with older styles and conventions, and sometimes this extends to titles as well. In Which a Trope Is Described is a titling convention with an intentionally Retraux feel; many 18th- and 19th-century (and occasionally, early 20th-century) works had extended titles which pretty much summed up the main events of the installment.

Post XVIII: In which Lu asks if this thread will move to improve the page

Wherein concurrence is given.

That looks good to me! I like the longer, more standard description. Playful is fine, but in this case it's just killing the clarity. Especially if you aren't particularly familiar with Victorian novels or the writings that parody the style.

I like that, except that I'm not sure about the claim that any straight example counts as Antiquated Linguistics. I suppose it depends on where you want to draw the line between straight and parody, but I'm pretty sure I've seen examples like "Chapter IV: In Which Our Heroes Decide to Get the Hell Out of Dodge".

I'm not convinced that examples which don't use antiquated linguistics actually count as a parody of a parody (and my example was intended as a random one—the fact that it may match Sophisticated as Hell was more-or-less accidental).

Basically, I'm asking if we really need to call it a requirement—it doesn't seem like an inherent part of the trope so much as a very common way to play it.

Yeah, decide if the proposed new description needs any further tweaking (I already suggested one tweak which should be easy to adopt), and plug it in. Nobody seems to have objected to the basic outline provided by Naphtha Turisas. I think this is mostly a matter of not letting this fall of the radar again until this relatively simple task is accomplished.

TV Tropes is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License. Permissions beyond the scope of this license may be available from thestaff@tvtropes.org. Privacy Policy